Yeah this sounds like a waste of time to look considering i don't know what this has to do with turning in a paper

The paper is on commitcoin implementation, which this double spend is a part of. If this is what I fear it is it might uncover a vulnerability in the protocol that authors shrug off as being practically unexploitable. Anyway it's not like someone could do this by accident so if you don't know you did it don't bother checking.

Yeah this sounds like a waste of time to look considering i don't know what this has to do with turning in a paper

The paper is on commitcoin implementation, which this double spend is a part of. If this is what I fear it is it might uncover a vulnerability in the protocol that authors shrug off as being practically unexploitable. Anyway it's not like someone could do this by accident so if you don't know you did it don't bother checking.

Yeah this sounds like a waste of time to look considering i don't know what this has to do with turning in a paper

The paper is on commitcoin implementation, which this double spend is a part of. If this is what I fear it is it might uncover a vulnerability in the protocol that authors shrug off as being practically unexploitable. Anyway it's not like someone could do this by accident so if you don't know you did it don't bother checking.